Predators

Great shot! You did a good job of capturing the subject, and the motion blurred vehicles in the background kinda represent how the critter saw things before it's demise. Sad, but that's part of what happens when nature meets progress...

I really like it. The image speaks so much, no words are required. Great blurring on the car headlights. The title confuses me a bit. Is a rat a predator? My cats kill them frequently, so I would consider them prey. Unless you meant the vehicle that killed him?

Sad but not all stories are happy. You have done well to convey the happenings on the side of this road. Good eye.

Very well done image, more creative than a lot of other images I see on Photo.net. Can you keep it up?

 

Good luck.

 

reminds me of when I decorated my apartment in Weegee prints and my mother-in-law asked me if I was the kid in the photo of two kids identifing the body of a drowning victum.

I'd first like to thank everyone for your very encouraging words - I am moved to see that an image of mine has moved some of you. To shed some light on the title of my photograph: I looked the cars straight in the eyes, and that is the word that came to my head. So, it is the cars that I speak of, and not the people within, nor the animal. The gentleman who asked this question answered himself nicely. =)

 

I have received private comments from one person, however, who doesn't seem to appreciate honest images formed in the world and captured onto film. I have not asked him whether or not I can anonymously post his message here and then comment on it, so I must respect him and only post my side of the story as it relates to his concerns.

 

Let me start off by saying that the gentleman who commented privately to me seems to prefer that this discussion stay private. However, I believe that by having this photograph publicly viewable and open to critique, it was already "too late" long ago. Forgive me if anyone is offended by my image of reality.

 

Now, let me begin - let me quote the gentleman's first words: "I think you are a seriously disturbed human being." Let me then show you the final words: "It's an intriguing theme, but not for everyone." And then, I am going to say that I agree with both, and here's why.

 

Does reality disturb you sometimes? To be here as photographers, I'm sure most of us are beyond the age of innocence, and most of you will probably say "Yes, there certainly are things out there that disturb me." I, for one, have always felt strange each time particular things happen. One of them is that of animals on the road. As Heather Nova writes in the lyrics to one of her songs on the Oyster album, "It's like poetry. Don't ask me to explain it." There is something there that moves me, yet I can not put it into words. Thus, I tried to capture that feeling in a photograph.

 

Now let me insert my reply to the gentleman who started my desire to show you the thoughts flowing between myself and him:

 

**********

 

Thank you for your response - negative or positive, it is feedback like yours

that I enjoy - words from your heart. Now, let me try to explain.

 

I see the world as it is, in full honesty. As you may already have seen in my

initial post, I capture whatever that moves me - honestly, without trying to

tell myself that both the dark and the light don't both stir something within

me. I wasn't laughing in any way when I saw that image - that slice of

reality. It disturbed me deeply. And it made me think back, and I remembered

everytime I saw such a sight, it disturbed me. Yet, it is reality, as it

should be accepted. Not everything is rosey and pretty. Reality, is that lives

are lost by accident, yet cars and cars of people just drive by. It bothers me

every single time, and yet I drive by like the rest of them. There is

something very strange about it, but I cannot put it into words. A thought

that comes to my mind is that of rushed people dropping change on the ground

as they're trying to get through the aisle in a grocery store. What falls -

living or not - is not without worth. Yet life goes on. And someone like me,

will see the change on the floor.

 

I have other interests besides photography, and in all, I try to aim for a

common goal. See everything through emptiness, because emptiness is totality.

I am sure that you understand what I mean when I say that everyone has their

own set of basic beliefs and principles. It is moulded by many hands, like

one's upbringing, culture, and personal experiences. It comes from this that

we all look upon the world through a lens - even without a camera in our

hands. By doing so, you have already seen the image before it has been shown

to you. When you see a still picture of an animal on the street, on its back,

without any gore, and cars are driving by, you immediately form an image ...

you have already killed it with your mind. Maybe it's not dead. Just as with

this picture of mine:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=368062

 

you already see an image of a sleeping person before you've looked at it.

Maybe he's not alive. It is these things in our heads that limit us from the

simple truth ... there is an animal on the street, there is a man on the

bench, there is change on the ground. Reality simply is, and we should keep it

that way instead of searching for the before and after ... by then, you have

missed the reality of now.

 

When you see with emptiness in your mind, you see the world as one living

entity, instead of all the living or dead elements within. Then, you are able

to see beauty.

 

Yet more, is that all knowledge leads to self-knowledge. The more you are able

to free yourself and see what is truly around you, the more you understand

your relationship to what is around you. I am trying very hard to express

honestly what I see when my eyes are open, and hoping that people see these

images after it has been shown to them, such that they exist in their pure

simple form, and stored in people's minds so that they have one more image

with which to understand themselves by.

 

And it is these things, that bring me to photography.

 

Best Regards,

Sam

 

**********

 

Photography is art, and I believe that art is about honestly expressing your soul. It all comes from deep within, and should be absorbed from a deeper, instinctive, natural place within you as a viewer, rather than analyzed too much by your rational self. When it comes through the skin, the feeling is lost by the time it reaches your heart and soul. All I want as an artist, if you will, is to allow my soul to touch yours.

 

Any comments? I'd love to hear it. The blur that surrounds "Art vs Reality" is always an interesting topic. And again, I mustsay, it is all these things that bring me to this wonderful world of photography.

 

Cheers,

 

You apparently didn't get the shocked reaction that you were hoping for with this picture, just a private e-mail. No problem, just post a few quotes from the e-mail, attach your little manifesto in reply, then bop over to the forum to declare an "art versus reality" debate.

 

I think this photograph is more about attention-getting than it is about art. Of course, this is the aim of much of what is put forward as art, and I can't deny that it even serves a purpose. Transgressing aesthetic boundaries provides us with a brief spectacle, reminds us where the boundaries lie, and ultimately reinforces them. The cost to the artist is that he gains in notoriety, but this is what he is after. The problem with this kind of art, and this photo does not escape it, is that it usually shows us boundaries that we are very well aware of, not surprising ones. It does not increase our self-awareness. So, even on its own terms as a piece of "shock-art", this photo is banal. Couldn't you have shocked us in some original way?

 

There now, you got some attention after all. Cheers.

It's a dead animal in the road. Past that, it's not a very good print (or scan, whatever). Part of getting any kind of message through in a photograph is mastering the technical so that it's not in the way.

I can smell the rat poison from here...

I read your comments on art above, and I can roughly follow your drift. However, a lot of the time we assume that different people have different personal definitions of art, but we ignore the reality end of the argument. The fact is, reality is also different for different people. For example, you are "deeply" disturbed about dead vermin on a roadside, and refer to cars as "predators" with eyes, while none of that is part of my reality. Animals are no more than animals for me; if they dont serve my purposes I have no need for them. In any case, their lives are expendable. Obviously "my purposes" covers a lot of ground -- e.g. cattle clearly serve my purposes because they give me food, but singing birds add beauty to my life and as such also have value for me. When it comes down to it, not even animal lovers are going to give up their transport for the sake of some furry creatures.

 

I have been driven towards this attitude partially by people who raise money and spend time saving animals while billions of people worldwide are living in poverty. Theres something terribly wrong and perverted with these peoples minds...

 

Just to show you one dot on the cross-section of viewers you are getting. Your picture may get very different responses depending on the viewers own private reality, not to mention their perception of art.

I was thinking of doing a coffee table book entitled "Roadkill" but now think its maybe not such a good idea after all. Conceptually, I like the picture, but kind of agree with the technical criticism you already got.

Good picture attract comments from good photographers. First of all Sam, its a good sign when so many excellent photographers comment on your picture. This one really succeeds to bring across a story. Very good work. I agree that the technicallities could be improved, but this is much easier to learn than developing the ability to envision good pictures and being able to make them. I think you're on a good way.

Hilarious photo. Original subject (dead squirrel) and good viewpoint. Good that you got the cars, especially blurred to have some movement in the photo.

A very good shot. You are showing reality with an artistic point of view. That's all. If some one feel upset, please look to another picture.

"I think you are a seriously disturbed human being." ~From above.

 

Now, what I think is disturbing are photos of babies and macro shots of flowers. Now as for this photo, it is just too damn spiffy.

Hi Brian, we seem not only to disagree on your photos, but on other people's pics as well. I smile while I write this, because I enjoy a good discussion. I have nothing against you or your pics.

 

I refer to you view of getting attention and transgressing boundaries, that you think of something negative.

I think one purpose of making photographs and showing them is to make people look at them. Why do people look at photographs and keep looking at them or even think about getting a print because the feel like they want to look at it again tomorrow and in 2 months?

Because it's something they know by heart or have seen a thousand times? I don't think so, unless the pic reminds them of something (like the pic of a dear one) or gives them a different point of view or stirs them emotionally.

Or you have to show them something new they have never seen before.

 

One ot two centuries ago, the depiction of an exotic animal ("The Beast") was enough to make people look, now wildlife pics are still selling good but not too many people would tell their best friends that the other day they saw picture of a lion. Same with nudes, colored people (they've been showing them on fairs for money a hundred years ago), pictures of the moon surface, the universe, microphotographs, action stopping (Edward Muybridge), stroboscobic photos and so on. Is this breaking the boundaries? I think so. Did this reinforce these boundaries? I don't think so. All of what I mentioned is part of our daily live. It might be used to give people a quick and cheap kick (like porn), but no doubt these old boundaries are gone forever.

 

What happened again and again during the past was that clever guys managed to get our attention by showing us pictures of the world we haven't seen before. And I think that's what in part photography is still about: Showing us the world anew, so that we stop our busy lives for a moment to take a look at what's before our eyes. This means attracting attention, fine. This might mean breaking rule after rule, fine with me.

 

The dead critter in this picture is not just a shocker. It literally shows me the world from a point of view I have never looked at it: The perspective of a small creature that was made for meadows, woods and rivers and died while trying to make it through the world of civilization.

That's not a brief spectacle, that's an experience, but I don't know if it's art or not; I don't even care.

 

This pic succeeded in what to me is the most important about any pic: It makes people want to look at it and the viewers feel 'richer' after they viewed, in this case 'richer' because of a new experience. It actually might this way increase our self-awareness and it is not banal, at least not for me.

 

Probably Samuels comments on different realities apply. If you ask yourself for a moment: Can I smell the rat poison (the tires, the mud), can I hear the cars, when I look at the pic. If your answer is no, then your reality is probably different from mine. But then go ahead and show me your reality in your pictures. I promise I'll do my best to find and understand it.

 

 

I think this is an excellent documentary photograph. Much of Sebastio Salgado's work depicts unpleasant scenes. The same for Dorothea Lange, Robert Frank, and Larry Clark. So, while I'm not elevating the death of a squirrel to the level of human suffering revealed by these photographers, if Mr. Chan feels it is important and can make us feel it to some degree as well, I think he has produced a successful photograph.

I've been (and will be) very busy, so I've just gotten around to continuing our discussion now - sorry for the delay ...

Chris Gillis: "Congratulations, Sam. You have found out that lines in the sand are just that. ART vs REALITY is dualistic thinking that has nothing to do with the complexity of the real world, nor how we see it. That is a great image, by the way."

Yes, lines in the sand are just that, however there are also many people who try to see otherwise by over-analyzing. The world may be complex, but to enjoy it you must see it simply. "Art vs Reality" ... to me, art is the reflection of reality from one's soul. I create art, as I create the reality in which I live. I do not think of them as opposing forces, but as compliments that form a whole. The "versus" shouldn't be taken too literally.

Brian Mottershead: "You apparently didn't get the shocked reaction that you were hoping for with this picture, just a private e-mail. I think this photograph is more about attention-getting than it is about art."

I mentioned that some people are shocked or depressed after seeing my photograph, but I didn't say that I am trying to shock or depress everyone else as well. I asked for people's opinions/comments so that I may have an idea of how well I've communicated my feelings through my photograph(s), and perhaps get some advice on how someone more experienced might improve this photo, especially in the technical sense. I welcome all comments - whether it be one private email or one million public posts - because, to me, any number of responses of any kind is a good thing whenever I'm trying to learn something new. Now, about attention-getting ... tell me, how do you get people's comments, from which to learn something, if you do not first get some attention? If you have a question to ask - privately to one person, or publicly to a group - do you just stay quiet, sit in a corner, and hope that someone will read your mind? When you want to get people's comments, you need to get attention, then ask a question. If you really want something, you have to take action. This is about a learning experience, not only getting attention or gaining notoriety. In a group environment such as this, everyone gains in knowledge when an individual asks a question. Even if you continue to focus on the fact that I have brought attention here to my photograph, remember that every comment about every photograph on photo.net is a learning experience for everyone, and not just for my personal benefit.

Samuel Dilworth: "Your picture may get very different responses depending on the viewers own private reality, not to mention their perception of art."

I absolutely agree, and I look forward to hearing from everyone who has something to share. It is the chemical reaction between my photograph and people's private realities that I am interested in seeing. As I have mentioned above, I follow the belief that the more you understand the people and things around you, the more you understand yourself and your relationship to the world.

I like it. I'm not sure exactly why, but I keep staring at the poor dead critter (interesting the way his legs are sticking straight up in the air). Certainly not the same old-same old subject matter.

Art is based on plagiarism, or has it's been soften down by artist, influences.

 

The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstien

 

The book:

If you spend a year of your life finding dead animals and finding better ways of shooting them (with a camera), you will probably get a more in depth experience then Sam, that shot just one or a few. If you publish a book, the readers will have a more complete experience of the subject by seeing dozens of these pictures.

 

Problem with art

That is the problem with art these days, people think everything has already been done. But to be a real underdog is to really try hard. Artists these days just want everything easy and right now. Nobody wants to work their way up and learn, it's a shame. With photography it's even easier to get caught in this feeling, since some uneducated people think, photography is just point and click.

 

At the end of the 19th century, painters were shocked by photography. The hours spent painting a subject realistictly was anilated by a picture that took a second to take. That's when the artisitc movement shifted to the impressionists. They started to paint quickly and carelessly.

 

The whole point is that art is not one sided and doesn't go in only one direction.

 

I got away from the original idea of the post, but this "debate" about art is the foundation of the artisit movement. What is art? Where is the margin between art and non-art?

 

If you want to take a look at this subject, read about the dadaists.

 

Sorry for the non-linear post.

Sam, this is a racoon isn't it? This photo does a really excellent job of telling how this animal died. I see this scene frequently but it never occured to me to stop & photograph one.You have suceeded in spades. Congrats, LM.

No I would bet it's a squirel (cute-rat)

I think it was either a groundhog or a racoon ... it was larger than a typically sized house cat.

I won't disagree with the photographer about the subject.

:) I can see you guys being a nice bunch to hang out with and chat.